This decree was passed by the Megalopolitans between the death of Philopoimen, in May or June of 182 (or in 183 according to the date retained in Winand and SEG), and the expedition of the Achaeans led by Lycortas against the Messenians in order to get back the body of the late general (strategos). About two months later, the expedition was successful. After a cremation of the body in Messene, the return of the Achaeans took the form of a funeral procession, led by the young Polybius, who himself held the funeral urn containing the ashes and bones (about these events and their context, cf. Kató; see Paus. 8.51.8 and Plut. Phil. 21.3).

Although the text is fragmentary, its content is quite clear, at least in its less damaged parts. The restorations adopted here are not to be taken as completely assured, but intend to transcribe the substance of the decree, which is known from the accounts of Diodorus (29.18) and Livy (39.50.9). Apart from exceptional tribute for a benefactor (at least four bronze statues, lines 11-16), the Megalopolitains grant Philopoimen divine honours by this decree. The repatriation of the bones (lines 7-8), the building of a memorial tomb (line 7) inside a proper precinct (line 43) and the establishment of a contest (line 34-35) form parts of a process of heroisation or divinisation which takes place in a long tradition (cf. Hughes for contextualisation). The expression τιμαὶ ἰσόθεοι (line 5; also used by Diodorus) leaves no doubt that the cult of the late Philopoimen was meant to place him on the level of the gods. The characteristics of the rituals envisaged by the text confirm this scale of the honours: a marble altar is to be built for Philopoimen (lines 9-10), and the meats of the sacrificial animals are to be shared and eaten (line 38; see Jost, Winand; the distinction between heroic honours for the dead and divine honours is stressed by Hughes 1999: 172, n. 28, though the opposition need not be taken so strictly, cf. Ekroth). For further examples of cultic honours, usually for prominent living individuals, see CGRN 137 (Aigai), CGRN 143 (Laodikeia-on-the-Lykos), CGRN 150 (Mylasa), and CGRN 168 (Keramos).

Line 5 : Much later, Megalopolitans also granted τιμαὶ ἰσόθεοι to the procurator Geminus (IG V.2 435).

Lines 10-11: For βουθυτεῖν, cf. again Diodorus 29.18. Winand and earlier scholars restore [τᾶι ἁμέραι τᾶι] in line 10, but a direct mention of the festival of Zeus seems more plausible. On the cult of Zeus Soter in Megalopolis, cf. Jost, p. 225-227 and 271-272 (she dates the foundation of the cult back to the 4th century BC as an aftermath of the battle of Leuktrai; archaeological remains are attested from the 3rd century BC). Unsurprisingly, the sanctuary was located in the agora (cf. also Paus. 8.30.10). It seems to have been the major sanctuary of Megalopolis, at least in the urban center, which explains that (honorary) decrees were published within it, at least from the 2nd century BC (IG V.2 437 and perhaps 436), and continuing into the Imperial period (IG V.2 435 and perhaps SEG 14, 347). The honours granted to Philopoimen seem to associate him closely with Zeus Soter, finding a place within an apparently preexisting cultic framework (the Soteria, the festival of the god and the games: see line 17). The choice of the holiday of Zeus Soter for the sacrifice to Philopoimen owes nothing to chance, since this god held a prominent position in the political center of the city. Above all, the association makes sense because Zeus Soter was frequently invoked to ensure the safety, integrity and freedom of the political community, especially against foreign enemies: Philopoimen held that role for the Achaeans (and especially his Megalopolitan compatriots), and his death, coupled with the worry about external threats (from the Messenians and Spartan neighbours, as well as the Romans) explains that the Megalopolitans placed such an emphasis on their freedom and σωτηρία.

Line 31: Akersekomes is usually a poetic epithet of Apollo (cf. LSJ s.v.), which may have been used at Megalopolis. Here, the reference seems to be the fact that the procession involves a circumambulation of the statue of the god (the epithet refers to the physical appearance of Apollo with "Unshorn Hair", a youthful aspect perhaps depicted in this statue).

Lines 36-38: The hierothytai are public magistrates in charge of the cult of deities lacking of a permanent priesthood, as the cult of Philopoimen did. Here, they are supposed to organize the sacrifice (purchasing an expensive bovine) and probably perform it too: they are given few minai by the treasurer for this purpose (see Winand).

Lines 39-40: Since the skin was to be given out to unknown recipients (see Winand for discussion), the sacrificial animal (i.e. the bovine mentioned in lines 10-11?) was not completely burnt. Hence, the consumption of the meat is more plausible than its destruction: Winand's καταχρᾶσθαι is thus to be preferred to Hiller von Gaertringen's κατακαίειν. For the same verb referring to consumption of sacrificial meat "on the spot", see here CGRN 62 (Lindos), lines A3-4 and B4-5, CGRN 117 (Lindos), lines 6-7, and CGRN 141 (Lindos), lines 5-6. Cf. Hughes 2019 for the parallel of Aratos at Sicyon.

Line 44: Winand interprets ἱερόθυτον as a verbal adjective, implying that a sheep was to be sacrificed by the hierothytai. Indeed, ἱερόθυτον cannot be the subject of δ[ό]τω (or of Winand's restoration [παρισ]|τ[ά]τω), so this seems to be the most likely interpretation. The remainder of this line is problematic (see Winand for a conjecture); τόν τ’ οἶ[νον] is almost certainly to be doubted, though a solution is elusive.

Line 46 : There is no other evidence for the cult of Hestia in Megalopolis (cp. Jost). Some (cf. Winand) read ὁ καὶ ..., as the subject of the verb, and thus assumed that some individual involved in the cult of the goddess is probably alluded to here. Given the sacrificial context, an alternative is to think that we have a neuter relative pronoun ὅ and thus that a sacrificial animal also consecrated (?) to Hestia might be meant. On the sacrificial relationship between Zeus and Hestia, cf. here CGRN 86 A (Kos), lines 25-30.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License 4.0 .

All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the DOI (https://doi.org/10.54510/CGRN198), as well as the year of consultation (see “Home” for details on how to cite or click “Export Citation” to create a reference for this specific file).